276 
helpless slave, and the noble dog of St. Bernard with its life-saving 
instincts.” Many scientists, who willingly accept this principle, refuse to 
apply it to man. They say that mankind, instead of coming from one stock, 
has had so many different origins. I am of opinion, however, that the argu- 
ments used in the one case ought to be used in the other, or not at all. On 
the page following there is a point to which I should be inclined to take special 
exception. The writer says, “ We find everywhere the same susceptibility 
of admitting the cultivation of these universal endowments.” According to 
my experience of different nations, — and I have seen a good many, — their 
turn of thought is as distinct as their external characteristics ; and I think 
that, perhaps, some mistakes may have arisen from the application to other 
races of those particular trains of thought which are suitable to ourselves 
under the peculiar circumstances in which we were situated. Therefore, I 
should be inclined to think that this paragraph as it stands has several 
exceptions in our experience of races and peoples. There is another point I 
have noted on page 267, which refers to the views expressed by an eminent 
authority, — Professor Huxley. With all due respect to so high an autho- 
rity, it seems to me that the purport of the paragraph the writer has quoted 
is simply that the doctrines laid down are inexplicable. In one passage we 
are told, “ If matter be not eternal, it must have had a Creator.” As has 
already been stated by a gentleman who has preceded me, such an assertion 
only tends to throw the ultimate causation further and further back. At 
the bottom of the same page the question of selection is raised. The theory 
is a very difficult one. Various kinds of selection are alluded to ; but the 
selection seems to have taken place absolutely before there was any creature 
to select from. The creatures who selected each other must have attained 
their special characteristics before the selection took place, or how could 
they have made the selection ? Like many others, I have studied the 
Darwinian theory, and tried to think it out ; but it seems to me that the 
principle laid down with regard to that theory fades away, and gives place 
to another theory. If we say it means progressive development we find 
ourselves in contact with creatures that are retrogressive. If we admit the 
principle which is laid down, it indicates progression, but we find many 
creatures existing through geological stratum after stratum from the most 
distant geological epochs, where we should naturally infer that everything 
would be shown to have progressed, instead of what we really do find, namely, 
that many of those creatures remain to the present day exactly as they were 
even in the Silurian ages. (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. T. K. Callard, F.G.S. — In reading this paper to you, I hope I have 
conveyed the full meaning of its author. There are some parts of the paper 
with which I do not quite agree ; but, taking it as a whole, I think it an 
admirable production, and I very much enjoyed reading it. The author 
says on pages 262 and 265, where he refers to the question of the antiquity 
of man and the origin of the human race, that these things are very 
closely allied. Of course, if there were no antiquity of man, evolution 
could not stand for twenty-four hours; therefore we have to look clearly 
